United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2026

Kevin Tyrone Flemings v. Darrin Bright

Kevin Tyrone Flemings v. Darrin Bright
United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Decided January 5, 2026
Kevin Tyrone Flemings v. Darrin Bright

Trial Court Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KEVIN TYRONE FLEMINGS, Case No. 16-cv-06808-JSW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CEASE TRUST DEDUCTIONS; 9 v. DENYING MOTION TO VACATE; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 10 DARRIN BRIGHT, Re: Dkt. Nos. 29, 31 Defendant.

12 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action. After he was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Defendant moved to revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The motion was granted, leave to proceed in forma pauperis was revoked, and, when Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee by the deadline, the case was dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff recently filed a motion for an order directing prison officials to cease deductions of his filing fees and motion to vacate the order revoking his IFP status.

18 Because Plaintiff’s IFP status was revoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and this case was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee, he is not obligated to pay the filing fee. See Meyers v. Birdsong, 83 F.4th 1157, 1160-61 (9th Cir. 2023). Under Meyers, no filing fee for this case should be collected, see id., but the court’s financial records indicate that the Clerk has collected a portion of his filing fee. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to cease deductions from his trust account for payment of the filing fee for this case is GRANTED. The Clerk is instructed to refund to Plaintiff any filing fees collected in this case and not to accept any future fee payments for this case. See id. (ordering clerk of the court to return incrementally collected filing fees because, where appellant was found to have “struck out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), fees should not have been collected). Prison officials should not continue to send filing fees to this court for this case. ] Plaintiff has not shown any justification to vacate the order revoking his IFP status.

2 || Accordingly, his motion to vacate is DENIED.

3 This order resolves ECF Nos. 29, 31.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 || Dated: January 5, 2026 7 VA NM FM Me 8 Umted Statesistrict Judge 1] as 12 «14

Oo Z 18

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.